NVIDIA, Intel Post New Windows 10 Graphics Drivers For WSL2 Linux App Support

[intelfx]

So, Microsoft has seen Linux as a potential threat as ML developers might choose the platform in windows detriment.

Now, they've managed to implement a compatibility layer so that the developer stays on windows.

Precisely.

[Giovanni Fabbro]

This is not adding DX support to Linux, is is adding DX support for Linux on Windows. Add to this the work done to add OpenGL on top of DX gives you the ability to run accelerated GUI Linux apps on Windows within the WSL layer.

What you're talking about has big-picture implications. If they decide they want to port more code to their own Linux kernel, they can. Currently the HAL in the Windows Kernel allows them to connect the hardware bits to a UMD in the users choice of Linux distro container, via the KMD through VMbus. Since they're compiling their own kernel, they could end up moving the Windows kernel and driver bits into their Linux kernel and then you'd have a full Microsoft Linux OS with DX support - not that they would, but they certainly could if they wanted to since the only thing between the hardware and their Linux kernel is the kernel space of Windows and the direct hardware drivers and the paravirtualization layers. It's all outlined on the page under the DxCore and D3D12 on Linux section here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/direc...x-heart-linux/

[mike456]

closed source DX12 support on wsl2? ahh I see they want developers to not switch to Vulkan.

[gerddie]

..., adding DX support for Linux just means porting game code is easier.

This is not adding DX support to Linux, is is adding DX support for Linux on Windows. Add to this the work done to add OpenGL on top of DX gives you the ability to run accelerated GUI Linux apps on Windows within the WSL layer.

[mlau]

Matrox had a limited niche on a couple cards but they were expensive for what you got.

Oh yeah, the Parhelia, interesting card but 2 years too late to market.

[Giovanni Fabbro]

Revisionist crap....

Believe what you want, but it's the hard truth.

[Giovanni Fabbro]

But I think you are failing to mention that the early versions of OpenGL was intended for things like CAD. It wasn't until -much- later that it was optimized for gaming. And I'm at least reasonably certain GLide support in game came first.

I think I mentioned that when I said:

3Dfx....required GLide ports to "miniGL". OpenGL prior to that was mostly relegated to CPU-only implementations, and only professional graphics applications. Before Quake, there wasn't really any 3D hardware rendering in games.

GLquake supported a few different OpenGL cards, just that 3Dfx Voodoo 1 was the first to do hardware rendering with any kind of decent texture filtering. And then you have anisotropic filtering which was offered on the Riva 128 before anything from 3Dfx. I remember Rendition Verite (I don't have an accented-e key) cards at the time, and they were just dog-doody. Ditto for the Rage II-era stuff. They just couldn't do any kind of decent 3D realtime graphics in comparison. ATI had some nice capture cards though. Matrox had a limited niche on a couple cards but they were expensive for what you got.

[duby229]

Ya the Voodoo 2 was the only one - I remembered that and added it to the original comment, but it wasn't the top card for long. Quake supported hardware OpenGL and 32-bit textures via GLquake pretty much from the start, so once the R128 came out, the Voodoo2 was done. 3Dfx just couldn't keep up after that, and then with their hardware limitations putting their cards several generations behind the competition, it was a company that had a very short heyday. ATI wasn't really a player until 3Dfx dropped off the map. Their Rage 128-based stuff was just plain junk in comparison to 3Dfx and NVIDIA, as was Rendition and Matrox.

I actually think that NVIDIA bought 3Dfx primarily for the patents on SLI, just so they would be able to force ATI to pay royalties to license it from them. I'm not sure that ATI ever had to, but no doubt they would've had to spend a whopping amount of R&D on Crossfire in order to compete.

Revisionist crap....

[duby229]

Back when OpenGL was just a pipe-dream, yes, NVIDIA had the most complete hardware support for it. 3Dfx, on the contrary, required GLide ports to "miniGL". OpenGL prior to that was mostly relegated to CPU-only implementations, and only professional graphics applications. Before Quake, there wasn't really any 3D hardware rendering in games.

But I think you are failing to mention that the early versions of OpenGL was intended for things like CAD. It wasn't until -much- later that it was optimized for gaming. And I'm at least reasonably certain GLide support in game came first.

[Giovanni Fabbro]

Well, my memory might trick me a bit, but I was pretty sure the Riva 128 wasn't up to Voodoo 2 performance. If we are only talking of single card performance, it's true that Nvidia was taking the lead with the TNT, but SLI allowed 3dfx to still beat them in many cases.
OpenGL performance from Nvidia has always been stellar, no doubt about that. But at the time, many more games used Glide.

Ya the Voodoo 2 was the only one - I remembered that and added it to the original comment, but it wasn't the top card for long. Quake supported hardware OpenGL and 32-bit textures via GLquake pretty much from the start, so once the R128 came out, the Voodoo2 was done. 3Dfx just couldn't keep up after that, and then with their hardware limitations putting their cards several generations behind the competition, it was a company that had a very short heyday. ATI wasn't really a player until 3Dfx dropped off the map. Their Rage 128-based stuff was just plain junk in comparison to 3Dfx and NVIDIA, as was Rendition and Matrox.

I actually think that NVIDIA bought 3Dfx primarily for the patents on SLI, just so they would be able to force ATI to pay royalties to license it from them. I'm not sure that ATI ever had to, but no doubt they would've had to spend a whopping amount of R&D on Crossfire in order to compete.